Shark

Barramundi

Trevally

Whiting

Boat Name

After stocking my freezer last night with purchased bait, it got me thinking about size and possession limits on purchased fish
For example, if im caught with an undersized crab that ive caught myself...I will be fined.
But if I purchase an undersized crab from Woolies...and get pulled over on the way home by fisheries (never going to happen, but for the argument lets say so) and the crab had no packaging...what would happen?
same goes for transporting tilapia that I catch compared to buying a whole tilapia that I buy from a local fish co-op...
And the same question can be asked about size and take limits...if I go and buy over 10L of prawns by myself and get pulled over on the way home...would I be pinged for it?

I was unaware of this practise.
link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-09-08/animal-activists-call-for-prawn-boycott-against-cruel-practices/8886626?WT.ac=localnews_brisbane
Animal activists are urging a boycott of Australia's farmed prawns in a bid to force an end to a procedure that involves slicing and cutting off the eyes of live female prawns to speed up the breeding process.
"They use a scissor-like application, a hot iron, to cut one of the eyes, the eyestalks, off breeding prawns in order to bring them very quickly to maturity. It's quite horrific and its causes them pain," she said…………
Australian Prawn Farmers' Association president Matt West staunchly defended eyestalk ablation as a necessary procedure done in accordance with industry best practice.
……."Every single thing that we do to these animals is designed to reduce stress, including some of the hatcheries are using anaesthesia to reduce stress," he said.
"We do eyestalk ablate, but it's done under very strict conditions and it's very, very different to what's depicted.

Taken from FW email newsletter 27 July 2017
NEW research has gone beneath the surface of the MoretonBayMarinePark...and the results have cast doubt on the effectiveness of estuarine no-take zones in protecting stocks of popular fish species.
The University of the SunshineCoast team who conducted the research was led by Research Fellow in Coastal and Marine Ecology Dr Ben Gilby.
“Our team compared the number and diversity of fish in six estuarine ‘no-take’ areas with that of 16 other estuaries where fishing is permitted,” Dr Gilby said.
“We found that the ‘no-take’ areas were falling well short of protecting fish that consumers like to catch and eat, such as bream, whiting and mullet.
“Paradoxically, fish targeted by anglers were more abundant outside the six protected reserves, in the estuaries where fishing was allowed.
“The only fish consistently found in greater numbers inside the ‘no-take’ reserves were species that people did not consume, such as toadfish and catfish.”
image: http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dmImage/SourceImage/Ben_Gilby_headshot.jpg
The USC research was led by Dr Ben Gilby.
The six dedicated estuarine reserves were at Pumicestone Passage (BribieIsland, Tripcony Bight), Redcliffe, Nundah, Pimpama and Coomera.
Dr Gilby, a fish ecology expert who lectures in Animal Ecology at USC’s campus on the SunshineCoast, said the study’s results initially puzzled the USC marine research team.
“To find answers to this paradox about fish numbers in declared reserves, we examined the habitat features of the protected areas and found two major shortcomings – they were too shallow and they were poorly connected to the main channel or sea.
“The reserves appeared to have been chosen mainly to protect mangrove habitat, but they unfortunately lacked sufficient water depth and had large areas drying out at low tide.”
He led the study with USC colleagues Animal Ecology Lecturer Dr Andrew Olds and Professor of Marine Science Thomas Schlacher, USC PhD student Nicholas Yabsley, HealthyLand and Water’s principal scientist Dr Paul Maxwell and GriffithUniversity’s Professor Rod Connolly.
Their paper, ‘Enhancing the performance of marine reserves in estuaries: Just add water,’ was published recently in the journal Biological Conservation.
Dr Gilby said the joint study broke new ground in identifying the environmental factors contributing to fish biodiversity in estuaries.
“It’s sure to be of great interest to anyone who wants more fish in the sea – whether that’s conservationists or recreational or commercial fishers,” he said.
“Our results indicate that the effectiveness of reserves can be improved by conserving deeper estuaries which have a diversity of habitats, better water flow and stronger links to the sea.”
The research received funding from the Brisbane-based non-profit organisation HealthyLand and Water and the Sea World Research and Rescue Foundation.
“We’re also about to start a similar project investigating the distribution of fish species in estuaries between HerveyBay and the Livingstone Shire (near Rockhampton), including the GreatSandyMarinePark.”

Taken from FW email newsletter 24 July
21 July
THE Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF) has cautiously welcomed the new Commonwealth Marine Reserve network plans released by the Director of National Parks Sally Barnes.
Managing director of ARFF Allan Hansard said: “Though we are still working through the detail of the plans, we are pleased to note that these plans demonstrate a more balanced approach to the Commonwealth marine reserve system than we have seen in the past.”
“The plans aim to deliver a world class marine reserve network while recognising the important contribution of key stakeholders, including Australian recreational fishers,” said Hansard.
“We think this plan goes a long way to achieving this objective.
“These plans are definitely a large improvement on the plans produced by the previous Government that would have seen recreational fishers locked out of over 1.3 million square kilometres of Australian seas, with out any scientific justification. Now we have access to 97 per cent of waters within 100km of the coast, and 80 per cent of the whole network.
“These plans maintain access to many of the iconic recreational fishing locations around Australia, with access to 76 per cent of the Coral Sea compared to 46 per cent in the previous plans meaning we have access to the world renowned Wreck, Marion, Shark and Osprey reefs in the Coral Sea and the Perth Trench and Geographe Bay in Western Australia.
“This will mean that Australians will still be able to sustainably fish these places for generations to come.
“Obviously we have some issues that we would like to have addressed before these plans are finalised. We will be using the submission process to raise these issues with the Government. We are particularly interested in how we can work with the Government in the future management of the new marine reserve network to improve community engagement, obtain a better understanding of fishing and the environment, trial new information management technologies and establish moorings and other systems to improve visitor experiences and recreational opportunities.
"We look forward to constructively work with the Government on these plans to ensure a world leading marine reserve network,” Hansard said.
Recfishwest, the peak rec fishing body in Western Australia, welcomed the latest Commonwealth Marine Reserves network plans, which recognises the importance of fishing in WA.
Recfishwest operations manager Leyland Campbell said Recfishwest were pleased to see these new plans deliver a more balanced approach than we have seen in the past and that the value of key recreational fishing areas have been acknowledged.
“These plans are definitely a large improvement on the plans produced by the previous Government which significantly impacted on fishing access,” Campbell said.
“After years of uncertainty, long drawn-out discussions and several different draft plans, todayís announcement is a better outcome for fishing.”
“These new plans maintain access to many of the iconic fishing locations around WA, including the Rottnest Trench and the South West’s Geographe Bay which had previously been earmarked for closed areas. This will mean that West Aussies can continue to sustainably fish these places for generations to come.”
Go to link to view the marine park plans in more detail and the process for feedback. Submissions close September 20, 2017. https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/management/draft-plans/

taken from fisheries Qld email 5-7-17
Dear fisheries stakeholder,
In June 2017 the Queensland Government released the Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017 – 2027, paving the way for Queensland to have a world-class fisheries management system.
A key action of the strategy is to establish fishery-specific working groups to provide operational advice from stakeholders from across the sector in the fisheries management process.
Fisheries Queensland is now seeking expressions of interest for members of the first three fishery working groups being established for the trawl, crab and east coast inshore fisheries.
Each working group will provide advice to Fisheries Queensland on the operational aspects of the management of a particular fishery. The initial focus will be advice on the development of management options and a harvest strategy for the fishery.
Working groups are advisory only and will not be decision-making bodies. Working groups will be made up of a range of stakeholders – commercial and recreational fishers, charter operators, seafood marketers and processors and people with conservation experience. Anyone is able to nominate, regardless of whether you are a member of a industry or community organisation.
Independent scientific advice will also be sought from the Sustainable Fisheries Expert Panel, made up of experts in the field of fish biology, fishery management, stock assessment modelling and economic and social science.
Membership on the working groups is on a voluntary basis. No sitting fees will be paid. Members will be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses including domestic travel, accommodation costs, motor vehicle allowances and meals.
Participation in working groups is a big commitment. Working groups established to provide advice on the development of a harvest strategy will be intensive and require a number of meetings every 4 to 8 weeks and out-of-session work. Some meeting may be held using teleconference facilities. How to apply
Applications must be submitted by 5pm on Saturday, 22 July 2017.
To apply please visit the Expression of Interest website (https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/consultations-and-legislation/fisheries-working-groups-expressions-of-interest) and complete the Expression of Interest Form.
Please return your completed nomination form to:
Mail: Director, Management and Reform, Fisheries Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, GPO Box 46, Brisbane QLD 4001; or
Email: fisheriesreview@daf.qld.gov.au.
Membership of working groups will be finalised by August 2017. Successful applicants will be notified in writing and be contacted to arrange attendance at the first working group meeting – scheduled for September/October 2017.
Being a member of a working group is not the only way to get involved. Fisheries Queensland will be engaging all stakeholders more broadly. One of the actions in the Sustainable Fisheries Strategy is to utilise more novel engagement techniques (including online surveys) to gather a range of feedback on particular fishery issues. Fisheries Queensland will also be holding regular regional face to face meetings in regional and port areas and releasing discussion papers on options to better manage our fisheries.
More information about the working groups, including Terms of Reference, is available online at www.daf.qld.gov.au. Please contact the Customer Service Centre on 13 25 23 if you have any queries.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister for Rural Economic Development
The Honourable Bill Byrne
Net free zones boost recreational fishing
Queensland’s net free zones are providing positive recreational fishing experiences in Cairns, Mackay and Rockhampton, a report released today has confirmed.
Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries Bill Byrne said recreational fishers overall reported increased satisfaction with their fishing experiences in the net free zones since their introduction in November 2015.
“In the Mackay net free zone we’ve seen a significant increase in recreational fisher satisfaction when compared to the previous year.
“In the Cairns and Rockhampton net free zones, recreational fishers are continuing to enjoy fishing in these areas, consistent with last year.”
The report, Recreational fishers’ satisfaction and expectations of Queensland’s net free zones, also showed that people who fished recreationally more than two days per month showed the greatest increase in satisfaction, on average their satisfaction increased more than 25 per cent from 2015 to 2016.
Minister Byrne said these results were promising.
“The net free fishing zones were introduced to increase recreational fishing opportunities in regional Queensland and support tourism and economic growth, so it’s great to see these early positive results,” Minister Byrne said.
Minister Byrne also today released the Fisheries Queensland report Monitoring Queensland’s boat-based recreational fishing, providing details of the species, number and size of fish caught throughout the state, including in the net free zones.
Minister Byrne said the boat ramp monitoring program, together with the recreational fisher surveys, would build a more complete picture of recreational fishing in Queensland and the effects of the net free zones.
“Monitoring is necessary to ensure our fisheries are managed responsibly and sustainably for the benefit of all Queenslanders,” he said.
“We know it takes a number of years to see the results of fisheries management changes and the introduction of the net free zones is no different.
“The Queensland Government will continue to monitor fishing in the net free zones to capture any changes over time to recreational fisher satisfaction, as well as the species, number and size of fish caught,” Minister Byrne said.
Nathan Johnston, President of the Queensland branch of the Australian National Sportfishing Association, welcomed the results.
“These results demonstrate that the net free zones are having a positive influence on recreational fishers’ satisfaction,” Mr Johnston said.
“While anecdotally our members have been reporting better catches, it is great to see robust science and monitoring of recreational fishing to reinforce any long term changes attributed to these net free zones and wider afield across 45 boat ramps in Queensland.
“Personally, I have participated in the boat ramp surveys twice this year.
“I strongly encourage anglers not to be shy and to brag about their catches when approached by Fisheries Queensland staff conducting boat ramp surveys, as this information is critical to informing sound management decisions,” he said.
From November 2015 to October 2016, more than 8000 boat crews were interviewed at boat ramps throughout Queensland and more than 4500 fish were measured from 34 species.
Pikey bream, barred javelin, sand whiting, common coral trout and yellowfin bream were the most commonly measured species throughout Queensland.
A variety of species proved popular amongst recreational fishers at boat ramps providing access to the net free zones, with barred javelin the most commonly kept species in Cairns, pikey bream in Mackay and school mackerel in Rockhampton.
The net free fishing zones were introduced in November 2015 and are located at Trinity Bay off Cairns, St Helens Beach to Cape Hillsborough north of Mackay, and the Capricorn Coast from Yeppoon down to Rockhampton (including the Fitzroy River).
To download the reports or learn more about the net free fishing zones visit www.fisheries.qld.gov.au or call 13 25 23.
Follow Fisheries Queensland on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (@FisheriesQld).

In June 2017, the Queensland Government released the Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027, paving the way for Queensland to have a world-class fisheries management system.
Some of the actions in the Strategy include things like harvest strategies for each fishery, satellite tracking on all commercial fishing boats, regionally specific fishing rules and using new technologies more effectively.
Importantly, these reforms also deliver on a number of actions under the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan, highlighting our ongoing commitment to the Great Barrier Reef.
The Strategy and factsheets about what the Strategy means for different stakeholder groups are available online at www.daf.qld.gov.au.

Taken from FW email newsletter 11 May 2017
THE Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has approved the determination of mid-water pair trawling as an approved fishing method in the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) until October 2018, subject to conditions and review.
This decision comes on the back of AFMA's recent announcement of an increase in the slimy mackerel quota of 450 per cent for the current season.
"The decision was made after considering the best available science and data with advice sought from the South East Management Advisory Committee, SPF Scientific Panel, SPF Stakeholder Forum, marine mammal and seabird experts and the public," a spokesperson from AFMA said.
"The period to comment publically on the determination of pair trawling as a fishing method opened on 22 December 2016 and closed 10 February 2017. In total, AFMA received 67 submissions, the majority of which were opposed to mid-water pair trawling in the fishery.
Issues raised by the public included:
impacts of fishing small pelagics on the broader ecosystem
localised depletion
risks to protected species
negative impact on the recreational or tourism sector.
Of further interest to recreational fishers will be the fact that one operator applied to pair trawl in the SPF and AFMA has gone further and approved pair trawling as a method, meaning that any licenced operator may now use the method.
On the impact to recreational fishing, AFMA dismissed stakeholder concerns saying that fishing in the SPF would not negatively impact recreational fishing, regardless of the method.
"The Commission noted the Scientific Panel’s advice that there is a low risk of localised depletion for SPF stocks due to the high mobility and rapid re-distribution of these species. Extensive dietary analyses and ecosystem modelling in Australian waters has shown that predator species are not highly dependent on SPF species and have a high capacity to switch prey. For these reasons, and the adoption of the revised harvest strategy which had been ecologically and economically tested, the Commission considered that fishing in the SPF would not negatively impact on recreational fishing, regardless of the method," a statement said.
You can read the complete rationale for the AFMA Commission’s decision regarding mid-water pair trawling here. http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Commission-rationale_Pair-Trawling.pdf
Further detail on the Commission’s decision regarding mid-water pair trawling and summary of comments received during public consultation can be found on afma.gov.au.

If this was you or I, we`d have boat and gear confiscated along with the fine. Obviously the profits for this guy far exceeds his fines, wonder if he claims the fines as work expenses with the ATO?
https://m.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/commercial-angler-busted-for-illegal-fishing/3173175/

Warning for those who can only CRACK a SAD:
The below may contain information or an opinion that is unsuitable for; those with a problem with politics section in a fishing forum, overly sensitive persons, those with no sense of humour, those with irrational environmental ideologies or those with wacky religious beliefs that may involve wearing a vest or those that insist on infringeing on the majorities way of life.
On the fuzzy warm side of things, no animals were harmed in the transmission of this message.
Taken from FW email newsletter 13 March
FISH FACTS; Animal rights activists are blurring the science around fish welfare
By Dr Ben Diggles | 13 March 2017
THE fish welfare issue has finally hit mainstream media in this country following an emotive opinion piece by a “reformed” ex-recreational fisher in the West Australian newspaper. After Recfishwest replied with a letter to the editor attempting to set the record straight and introduce some facts into the debate, Dr Jessica Meeuwig from University of WA replied with a letter of her own published on the 30th January 2017 entitled “No myth in the science around fish and pain”.
In it, Meeuwig provides readers with her slant on fish pain science, stating “these are not cherry picked examples”, but she then went on to do exactly that with a one-sided portrayal of the science of “fish pain”, mixed in with her own potent cocktail of “welfare meets conservation meets animal rights” assessment of catch and release fishing. Her letter ended in a quote saying “perhaps we will look back one day on our pursuit of these animals for sport and ask, “what were we thinking?”
Meeuwigs viewpoint highlights a yawning gap between the different ethical views on conservation practices such as catch and release. The fisher’s viewpoint is probably best summarised by J Claude Evans in his book “With Respect for Nature: Living as Part of the Natural World” who said:
“The practice of catch and release is based on respect for the integrity of ecosystems and populations that are subjected to the pressures of human use and exploitation. Embedded in this practice is a specific respect for the individual fish one attempts to catch and then releases…”
In contrast, we have the viewpoint of animal rights and animal liberation advocates, who can be summarised by a quote from John Webster, author of a book entitled “Animal Welfare, limping towards Eden”, who says:
“What can be more humiliating for a fish than to be caught by an angler—and worse still—to then be released. The poor thing is probably traumatized for the rest of its life and shall therefore be better off by being killed than released.”
It’s “interesting” to say the least that a scientist like Meeuwig chose (knowingly or not) to align herself with animal rights philosophy, particularly as animal rights and liberation philosophies break down wherever wild animals encounter predation in a natural food chain.
This is because, as eloquently pointed out by UK based Philosopher Professor Warwick Fox, the animal rights and liberation theories cannot adequately explain why we should, for example, stop human predation or interactions with fishes on one hand, but on the other hand, not attempt to intervene to stop the suffering (or "rights violations") of other fishes in terms of their predation upon each other.
Indeed, a literal interpretation of animal rights philosophy is that one acceptable solution to predation is to “simply humanely eliminate all predators” because humans alone can determine what is morally right or wrong and therefore we are obliged to protect the so called rights of prey species.
Clearly then, animal rights and liberation theories are fundamentally and fatally flawed in this respect and have no place in any science based efforts to manage the natural environment because of this.
It’s important to realise that animal welfare theory accepts fishing, and fishing is an OK activity for fish welfare provided scientifically validated best practice methods are used – which is why Australia has developed and recently updated its National Code of Practice for Recreational Fishing.
In contrast, however, animal rights and animal liberation theories do not condone fishing in any form, as shown by the comparison in Table 1. The table is borrowed from a paper by Professor Robert Arlinghaus from Germany, a fisheries scientist who took an active interest in the subject once it began to impact on the ability of his department and students to do fisheries research in Germany.
The table in the link below is useful as it’s important to know the difference between valid welfare concerns, which are based on science, and animal rights and liberation theories, because its the latter two which are used to form the basis of anti-fishing campaigns from the animal rights movement. These campaigns tend to be based on emotion, and dodgy “science” messages, but unfortunately, if not challenged they can be highly successful, mainly in first world, post-industrial democratic societies, with highly urbanised populations.
https://www.agrar.hu-berlin.de/de/institut/departments/dntw/jp_bfm/publ_html/arlinghaus-et-al.-2012-anti-angling
One such place was Germany, where activists found it was easy to project the view that humans are “no longer part of nature”, especially when most people think their food comes from the supermarket. For people who are completely divorced from nature, its an easy stretch for anti-fishing activists to extend to them the feelings-based theories that fish are human-like, “feel pain” and “suffer”, and use dodgy science messages to get activities such as catch and release banned as a result.
This is not the first time we have seen such confused, mixed emotive welfare/rights/conservation messages arising from WA, and it is almost certainly not going to be the last. Why? Because the urban majority have largely lost their connection to the natural environment, attitudes to wildlife change as studies have shown urban people who have no interaction with wild animals begin to view them in more of a “mutualistic” manner, ie. as friends or pets.
In contrast, those people who fish or live traditional or rural lifestyles and actually interact with wildlife and/or farm animals on a regular basis are more likely to see themselves as part of that environment and hold differentviews towards animals, believing they should be managed when necessary and can be used to benefit humans (the so called utilitarian viewpoint).
But with a highly urbanized population in Australia and fewer and fewer people collecting their own food these days, more and more we are seeing valid concepts of welfare and conservation being blurred and distorted into the potent mixing pot of social media to arrive at emotive outbursts with animal rights and liberation overtones, even by so called academic experts like Meeuwig.
Indeed, its possible that this is the new normal for public debate about recreational fishing in this country going forward, which is why it is worth fishers understanding the underlying drivers behind this phenomena. Its important that people are called out when they mix up valid welfare or conservation concerns with animal rights and liberation philosophies.
The latter simply do not work when managing animals which live in the real world in real food chains in the natural environment, which is why only proper, science based management approaches will do.

Taken from FW email newsletter
NSW RFA pleads for common sense regarding life jackets
2 March 2017
A GROUP of experienced NSW fishos is pushing to amend laws forcing them to wear life jackets designed for boating while rock fishing along the Randwick coastline.
According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, the alliance is calling on the NSW state government to amend the new laws to allow rock fishos to wear either a life jacket, life vest or wetsuit while fishing on the rocks.
From November 30th fishos in Randwick Council Area will be fined $100 if they choose not to wear a life jacket that meets Australian Standards.
Malcolm Poole, from the NSW Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), said he was the only rock fisher on a 27-person rock fishing working group set up by the State Government.
“We do not have the appropriate range of life jackets as they are generally designed for boating,” Poole said.
Poole has been rock fishing for 50 years and believes complying life jackets had a natural roll that allowed users to float on their back with their chest and head held above the water but restricted their ability to swim.
He said anglers who were unable to swim should wear life jackets but life buoyancy vests or wet suits were preferable as they allowed anglers to swim if they were swept into the ocean.
President of the RFA, Stan Konstantaras, normally wears a life vest which is actually illegal under the new legislation.
“Rock fishers have been doing their own research and deciding what to wear on the rock for years and won’t be told that their safety gear is inferior based on the views of a policy adviser who has never set foot on a rock platform,” he said.
“The current range of life jackets they are being bullied into wearing by NSW Police, council rangers and Fisheries officers are designed for boats, not rock fishing.

Previously I would have posted this in the Outdoor`s section but that does not appear to be available these days?
If you do, we would love to hear from you. Your opinions will help the NSW Department of Primary Industries Game Licensing Unit to better understand the experiences of hunters in NSW and the economic and other benefits that hunting brings to the community. In order to tell us your views, please click 'Start Survey' below. It will take 15 minutes or so to complete the confidential survey. The survey is best done on a computer. Although it is possible to complete the survey on a tablet or smart phone, this may take longer.
Full Details http://nswhunt.dbmweb.com.au/

Taken from FW email newsletter 9-6-16
THE Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has recently reviewed the Vessel Management Plan (VMP) for the Geelong Star and is now releasing this revised draft VMP for public comment.
This VMP is a boat-specific statutory requirement which sets out what the Geelong Star must do to minimise the risk of interactions with protected species (e.g. seabirds, seals and dolphins) as well as the general operational requirements of the boat. The VMP should be read alongside the general management arrangements for the Small Pelagic Fishery which can be found on the AFMA website.
More information on the changes to the revised draft VMP can be found at Summary of changes in the revised draft Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan: http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery/geelong-star-vmp-public-comment/
Those with an interest in the management of the Small Pelagic Fishery are welcome to provide comments on the revised draft VMP by 27 June 2016. Comments can be made by going to AFMA’s website. AFMA will consider public comments prior to finalising the revised VMP and is particularly seeking any science or evidence that would lead to its improvement. The final VMP will be published on AFMA’s website.
Please note that any public comments received may be made public unless the person or body submitting them makes it clear that they do not want them to be made public.
Further information about how AFMA manages its fisheries can be found on the AFMA website:
http://www.afma.gov.au/

Taken from Fishing World`s website news 6 June 2016
OZFISH aims to change the ways Aussies fish
OZFISH Unlimited is a new fishing conservation movement that is set to transform the future of recreational fishing in Australia by asking every angler to fish differently.
This is a bold move, but it’s clear that anglers are becoming or aspiring to become environmental stewards of their sport and genuinely want to help protect and restore fish habitat; a critical component of securing the future of recreational fishing in Australia.
And Ozfish Unlimited plan to help them do it.
OzFish Unlimited’s mission is to invest time and money towards grassroots rehabilitation and regeneration activities, giving anglers and communities more control over the health of their rivers, lakes and estuaries by counteracting decades of degradation.
Why is ozfish unique?
*We are the first movement of this kind that will help guide Australia’s recreational fishing community in becoming environmental guardians by understanding fish habitat as a critical part of their sport’s future.
*We are a not-for-profit organisation, created by a group of individuals who are passionate about protecting the future of recreational fishing and building a legacy of healthy waterways for future generations.
*We have Australia’s highest profile anglers…the juggernauts of the industry backing our call to action to see a dedicated fishing conservation movement sweep across the country.
Why is Ozfish's work so important?
· Our once-healthy waterways have been sorely impacted over the decades by human intervention and further loss of this precious resource will place the future of recreational fishing at risk.
· In the MurrayDarlingBasin there are 10000 barriers to fish passage.
· In Northern NSW over 70% of fish habitat has been lost. (over 62,000ha)
· In South Australia we have lost over 1500km of oyster reef.
· In Western Australia we have lost thousands of hectares of seagrass – up to 80% in many places.
· In Queensland our reef is suffering from poor water quality from its catchments.
· In Victoria seagrass loss, poor water quality and barriers have all impacted on fish numbers.
Partnerships
Habitat projects are already underway across Australia and we have secured the support of industry and government agencies. For instance, the Fisheries and Research and Development Corporation has provided a major grant for OzFish Unlimited to hold “Fishers for Fish Habitat” seminars across the country.
Partnerships include:
The Nature Conservancy http://www.natureaustralia.org.au/
The Reef and Rainforest Centre Qld http://rrrc.org.au/
Recfish WA http://recfishwest.org.au/
Recfish SA http://recfishsa.com.au/
SEQ Catchments http://www.seqcatchments.com.au/
For more information please visit the Ozfish Unlimited websitehttp://www.ozfish.org.au/
and Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/OzFishUnlimited/

Taken from ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-31/overhaul-of-nsw-fishing-laws-to-see-catch-quotas-introduced/7463690
Overhaul of NSW fishing laws to introduce catch quotas to fishing shares
The State Government has announced an overhaul of New South Wales commercial fishing rules, saying it will make the industry more sustainable.
Catch quotas will be applied to fishing shares, so some businesses will need to buy extra shares to support their needs.
Financial assistance will be offered to fishers, and there'll be payments of up to $20,000 for those who want to leave the industry.
The Government will spend $16 million in financial support for fishers affected by the changes.
Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair said far too many fishing shares had been issued in the past 20 years.
"And those shares in the marketplace have very little value and no certainty when it comes to fish stocks," Mr Blair said.
"What we're doing today is putting certainty into those fish stocks and adding value back into those shares."
Mr Blair said the Government wanted more seafood in NSW to be consumed in NSW households.
"Fifteen per cent of the seafood we eat in NSW comes from NSW waters, and that's something that we want to change," Mr Blair said.
"At the moment there is too much imported seafood being consumed."
He said the new rules would maintain the viability of an industry which makes $90 million for the NSW economy.
Mr Blair said the industry had been struggling under detailed regulations and this would bring in more manageable practices.
Industry group calls for more detail on new laws
Executive officer of the Professional Fishermen's Association Tricia Beatty said her organisation needed more information on how some of the quotas would work.
"Our industry has been faced with a lot of uncertainty because they didn't know what the decision would be for the last four years, so we're [welcoming] that we finally have been told what's going on," Ms Beatty said.
"However, there's still a lot of detail that has not been provided and still needs to be worked through."
But she said the industry had some concerns about whether the proposed quote arrangements are viable.
"At the moment we are working with the NSW Government to work out these details," she said.
"The NSW Government has made that commitment to work with industry to resolve our issues."
She said the seafood labelling scheme would allow consumers to make more informed decisions.
"I'm pretty confident the NSW consumer will choose rightly to eat local, fresh product, so that's been a welcome commitment."

Taken from DAF Catch news email newsletter 26-5-16
Buyback Scheme for Net-free Zones rd1 Completed
The first round of a structured Buyback Scheme for commercial fishers directly affected by Queensland's new net-free fishing zones has been completed.
Three net-free zones were established at Cairns, Mackay and Rockhampton on 1 November 2015 as part of the Queensland Government's Sustainable Fishing Policy.
$10 million was set aside to help affected fishers. Three assistance schemes administered by QRAA closed on 2 December 2015.
The first scheme, the Buyback Scheme targeted commercial fishing boat licence holders who used the zones between 2012 and 2014, seeking to buy back up to 46 licences voluntarily to minimise commercial fishing effort moving into other areas or other fisheries. Twenty-seven offers were received at a cost of $3.318 million.
Under the remaining two schemes, voluntary offers were made to commercial fishers based on the level of commercial netting undertaken in each zone. There were 95 fishers eligible for the Settlement Scheme and 87 chose to accept the offer totalling $1.026 million. 30 fishers were eligible for the Impact Alleviation Scheme and all chose to accept the offer made at a total cost of $1.5 million. The report Outcomes of the Fisheries 2015 QRAA Assistance Schemes is available for download.
For more details, visit net-free fishing zones.
Monitoring King Threadfin Salmon
Commercial fishers and processors have shown strong support for a new pilot program to monitor King Threadfin in the Gulf of Carpentaria and in areas of the East Coast.
The program which started in January 2016 involves the biological monitoring of the length, sex and age of King Threadfin from the commercial and recreational harvest.
Fisheries Queensland scientists are measuring fish from commercial fishers before sale, at seafood wholesalers and processors and from donated fish frames.
The King Threadfin species has also been added to the Fisheries Queensland Keen Angler Program where recreational fishers can donate their fish frames for monitoring research.
King Threadfin in East Coast Queensland is classified as an undefined stock while the species is classified as transitional – depleting in the Gulf of Carpentaria Queensland.
For more information, visit the King Threadfin Stock Status Assessment webpage.

Taken from Fishing World email newsletter 12 May
John Newbery 9 May 2016
DISCUSSIONS of how to respond to a spate of recent shark attacks in NSW continues, fuelled by explorations of the effectiveness of both current and proposed measures in both the print and electronic media. The ABC’s 4 Corners devoted a full program to these issues and were reasonably balanced in giving pro and anti-shark meshing “experts” equal time, although the anti-brigade seemed to be convinced that the current program of meshing 51 beaches between the Hunter and the Illawarra in the warmer months was primarily about catching sharks that might otherwise attack someone. It’s not. It’s about deterring sharks from entering the zone where people are swimming or surfing. And it’s been very successful since it was put in place in the 1930’s. But it does kill some sharks, including some protected species, and some unintended species.
There’s a heady mix of interests involved, with issues spilling over between groups with quite different objectives. Passionate anti-mesh folk continually talk about swimmers and surfers “entering the sharks’ domain”, as if this gives the sharks the OK to take chunks out of them. The SMH’s Good Weekend magazine ran a very good cover story recently where a group shark attack survivors reflected on the fact that they’ve at times been blamed and vilified for what happened to them. Pretty tough.
Surfers not unreasonably would like to think that some action should be taken at known attack hot spots to mitigate the risks of further deaths or injuries. Local business people and councillors have a slightly different motive: they don’t want summer tourists deserting their areas with the resultant risks to communities and peoples’ livelihoods. Both seem fair concerns.
NSW politicians end up in a very tricky position. While some media articles criticise them for not extending the meshing program with cute banner headlines such as “Net result is too many beaches undefended”, others go the opposite way and suggest they’re supporting the killing of valuable animals by not removing the existing nets. Their own agencies are reviewing program effectiveness via a new Joint Management Agreement for the Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program. They’re also trialling barriers, drone patrols, tagging, hooking and releasing and sonic deterrents on the north coast, where most of the recent serious attacks have occurred.
So what’s going to happen? As inshore bait fish stocks continue to improve through better fisheries management it seems likely shark attacks will continue, particularly as there are now far fewer professional shark fishers and more protected shark species. The shark supporters will continue to criticise meshing and agitate for its removal. Realistically, you’d have to expect that politicians won’t agree to remove mesh netting from current locations but probably won’t extend it.
But rest assured of one thing: if you catch a big shark, kill it, photograph it and display the photo on social media or in the local paper, you’ll be attacked, abused and trolled like you wouldn’t believe.

I hope all are aware that today marks 45 years since we were all called to arms to save the Earth from ourselves, let`s take some time today to grasp the significance of how far we have come in 45 years.
First, I must thank those who made the statements and those who put together the statements that I have cut and pasted. Cheers all around. Now, let`s re-cap on the main points of 22 April 1970….
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, StanfordUniversity biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, StanfordUniversity biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist…..
So, once again I must ask the question : ‘What happened to Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, did he go on to bigger and better forecasting with a weather bureau service or did he do a Uni-bomber and go all hermit-like and live quietly in them there hills’

Taken from DAF email newsletter CatchNews
24-3-16
In mid-2014 the Queensland Government commissioned an independent review of Queensland’s fisheries management to deliver a better system for the State’s commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers. The review was undertaken by consultants MRAG Asia Pacific who submitted a final report to the Government in late 2014. Their report Taking Stock: Modernising fisheries management in Queensland recommended fundamental changes to the current approach to fisheries management and included 80 recommendations. It was released for public consultation in mid-2015. Stakeholder feedback on the report largely supported the need for broad fisheries management reform, including improved stakeholder engagement, a clearer decision-making framework and a more stable and transparent approach to resource allocation. The Government will consider its response to the MRAG report in light of the stakeholder feedback and commitments in the Sustainable Fishing Policy later this year. and-consultations/fisheries-management-review For more information about the Fisheries management review: https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/consultations-and-legislation/reviews-surveys-and-consultations/fisheries-management-review

If this does get approved and goes ahead then we can say bye bye to fishing from luggage point in the near future. Not only for sharking, but for kayakers, boaties and any other land based fishing from that area. booooo
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/will-cruises-hit-luggage-point-blockage-20160301-gn7urt.html

Taken from FW email newsletter 7 -2-16
ROCK fishers in NSW will be forced to wear lifejackets under legislation announced today.
NSW Emergency Services Minister David Elliot said the new laws would be introduced soon, according to a report on the ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-07/nsw-government-to-force-rock-fishers-to-wear-lifejackets/7146854
"What we are saying to the people of NSW today is that if you enjoy rock-fishing, that's fantastic, but we want you to get home. You have to wear a life-jacket if you are in a high-risk area," said the Minister.
"Unfortunately, it has taken 37 deaths for this legislation to come through."
Elliot said the penalties for not wearing a life jacket in these areas would be similar to those for on-water activities.
"This is legislation that has been forced on the Government because people have not heeded the public safety campaigns in the past," Mr Elliot said.
The ABC reports there will be a 12-month grace period after the laws are introduced.

Taken from FW email newsletter
10-12-15
THE state’s largest ever recreational fishing survey reveals that approximately 642,000 Queenslanders go recreational fishing, crabbing or prawning, representing 15 per cent of the Queensland population aged five years or older.
Fisheries Queensland Manager Dr Ross Quinn said the statewide recreational fishing survey showed fishing remained an enormously popular recreational activity in Queensland.
“This is a great result for the recreational fishing sector given people have so many choices now as to how they spend their time,” Dr Quinn said.
“Results showed that over the survey period, recreational fishers caught approximately 12 million fish.
“The most commonly caught fish is the Yellowfin bream with an estimated 1.2 million caught, sand whiting at 1.1 million and 679,000 trumpeter whiting.
“These results will benefit stock and sustainability assessments and the recreational fishing sector.”
More than 15,000 randomly selected Queensland households were contacted and asked whether they intended to fish in the 12 months from November 2013 to October 2014.
More than 90 per cent of the households that intended to fish, volunteered to take part in a 12 month phone diary survey.
Dr Quinn said the aim of the Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey 2013-14 is to provide reliable catch and effort estimates for fish species commonly caught by Queensland’s recreational fishers.
“This information will be combined with commercial, charter and scientific research data to demonstrate that our fisheries are sustainably managed,” he said.
“The high cooperation rate is very positive, showing the willingness of recreational fishers to get involved in monitoring programs.”
Key findings:
· Approximately 15 per cent of Queenslanders, 5 years or older, are recreational fishers, which represents 642,000 Queenslanders.
· Queenslanders fished for approximately 2.5 million days in the state, between November 2013 and October 2014
· Almost all recreational fishers preferred to throw in a line and nearly half chose to fish from the shore.
· Approximately 49 per cent of fishing households owned a boat and most of these were 4-5 m powerboats.
· Yellowfin bream was the most commonly caught fin fish in Queensland with an estimated 1.2 million caught. Australian bass was the most popular freshwater fish caught while Coral trout was the most popular tropical fish.
· Mud crabs were the most commonly caught non-fish species, with approximately 1.7 million caught.
· A common reason for releasing fish was because they were considered too small or below the legal size limit. A very high proportion of barramundi were released (76% or 132,000 fish) however very few mullet were released (11% or 27,000 fish).

taken from FW email newsletter 18-1-16
Environment Opinion: Do we have a right to eat local seafood
By John Newbery | 18 January 2016
WHENEVER I write a piece which suggests that it doesn’t really matter where Australian consumers source their seafood there’s inevitably a comment posted about the “right” of people to eat locally caught product.
Local commercial fishing operations and their representatives and associations have been pushing that line for a long time. If a fishery activity is restricted or an estuary or ocean area is listed for closure to commercial fishing, the old consumer “rights” argument gets trotted out.
It’s probably time that it got put to bed for good, because basically it’s nonsense.
“Rights” don’t exist in thin air. They’re based on laws, regulations and constitutions. The US Constitution gives its citizens “the right to bear arms.” There’s no parallel here, although you and I can apply for a restricted gun licence and if we get through the hoops we then have a very limited right to own a gun in a particular category, as long as we conform to all sorts of storage and usage requirements.
Similarly we don’t have an overarching right to fish, either as a pro or an amateur. Pro fishermen have to obtain licences, respect quotas, and handle, store and market their fish in defined ways. Anglers may have to buy a licence, conform to bag and size limits and respect no-fish zones established for conservation or public health reasons. Aboriginal communities seeking to exercise what they consider to be their traditional fishing rights to harvest whatever seafood they want or exclude outsiders from their land and water have to have these claims tested in court.
So the non-fishing public doesn’t really have a “right” to eat locally caught fish, unless some piece of legislation or regulation says it does. It may have a right to eat safe seafood (as defined in health and safety terms), but that’s quite different, and applies equally to locally caught, locally grown or imported product.
So the promoters of buying locally sourced seafood should change their pitch. A coalition of lobbyists from the catering and importing sectors appears to have scuttled their efforts to get country of origin labelling legislation covering all seafood through the Senate. Promoting sustainably caught, ethically handled, independently certified local product to the broad public must now be the better route.
Any more talk of “rights” and I’ll start a campaign for the right of every day Australian consumers to be able to buy local abalone, rock lobsters and southern bluefin tuna at reasonable prices, rather than at the lofty levels that are currently charged due to competition with continued healthy export demand.
But all this might change anyway over the next couple of decades. If the future analysts looking at population growth and energy costs are correct, it won’t be economical to fly produce all around the world in a global economy as we do now and we’ll all have to rely on locally sourced, seasonal product... Not as a right, but as a necessity.